Drug Testing Has Merit.

In 2003, Michigan was the first state in the United States of America to impose mandatory drug testing of welfare recipients. It was struck down by the courts as an unconstitutional search and seizure that same year. In early 2011, the state of Florida made headlines as the next state to pass a law requiring drug testing on applicants to the state's Temporary Cash Assistance Program, euphemistically known as welfare. Not surprisingly, the law was challenged in court, and an Orlando judge issued an injunction in October 2011 halting implementation of the law. Missouri also passed a drug testing law in early 2011. The bill's stated purpose is to protect the children in the home of or belonging to Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) recipients and to prevent abuse of taxpayer funds by taking steps to ensure that TANF recipients are not abusing drugs and alcohol. The Missouri bill took effect in August 2011, and remains in force today.

Connecticut actually considered a bill similar to this at one point in 2011, Senate Bill 395. It would have required periodic drug testing of adults receiving state cash assistance. State assistance recipients in Connecticut were defined as individuals receiving Temporary Family Assistance (TFA), Medicaid, Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP), or State-Administered General Assistance (SAGA) benefits. For a first positive test for illegal drugs, the individual would have to undergo an evaluation for drug dependence by a health care provider and if the provider recommended such, complete a drug education or treatment program. Recipients testing positive a second time would be required to complete a drug education or treatment program. Recipients who either failed to complete the treatment program or tested positive a third time would lose their cash assistance. The bill, which was referred to the Human Services Committee, was never raised. The issue has not been formally discussed since.

During an interview in October 2011, Connecticut’s Social Services Commissioner Roderick Bremby was questioned about the new Florida law, and did not explicitly rule it out. However, Governor Malloy's spokesman immediately made a statement that Mr. Malloy would not consider it. He believed it to be discriminatory, and the discussion would go no further.

The debate surrounding this issue in many states has been heated, with opponents of testing claiming that individual liberties are violated. Additionally, some have stated that welfare recipients do not abuse drugs in a proportion higher than the general population. Thus, suspicion-less testing is not warranted. Others yet have claimed that those in need might be turned off at the prospect of a drug test, and would therefore refrain from applying in the first place.

The liberal argument against testing seems to miss entirely the larger lessons which can be learned from this issue. Perhaps a little accountability would not be the worst thing. Expecting others to be responsible for their own actions, rather than shielding them from responsibility would be more constructive. Many of us have undergone drug testing as a requirement for our own employment, and constitutional challenges against this in the past have largely failed. If an individual who is receiving cash assistance were to test positive for illegal drugs, obtaining work would be extraordinarily difficult. In a state where we are being crushed under the weight of our social service commitments, our legislators should not spend their time figuring out ways to spend more money. We should focus our efforts on encouraging people to become self sufficient, and make better decisions. The citizens of Connecticut who work for a living and provide these tax dollars have a right to the assurance their money is spent wisely, and we should ultimately expect no less.